The Lucy Letby Inquiry

[Wymsey]

A new series, detailing both sides of the case, starts at 9pm on Channel 4.

[Trav Le Bleu]

So then Wymsey?

 

Greta or Lucy?

[worthosoriginals]

25 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

So then Wymsey?

 

Greta or Lucy?

Or, any fit cousins?

[Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot]

Seems this isn’t going away and more and more stuff pointing to her being the scapegoat of a cover up. I’ve not looked in to it in any great detail, and obviously a lot of stuff being said with the new Netflix documentary inbound. 

[VLC86]

22 minutes ago, Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot said:

Seems this isn’t going away and more and more stuff pointing to her being the scapegoat of a cover up. I’ve not looked in to it in any great detail, and obviously a lot of stuff being said with the new Netflix documentary inbound. 

From the other documentaries I’ve seen, at best the investigation and evidence presented appears to have been let through when it shouldn’t have.

 

It’s pretty harrowing for all involved. If she is guilty, it’s led to doubt but if she is innocent it’s ruined her life. It’s a really sad state of affairs and you’ve got to feel for the families.

[Paninistickers]

Anyone watched the Netflix documentary? 

 

I'm still 50/50 after seeing it. And you can't convict on a 'maybe' basis

[VLC86]

24 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

Anyone watched the Netflix documentary? 

 

I'm still 50/50 after seeing it. And you can't convict on a 'maybe' basis

Yeah, the channel 4 one was much better as far as the detail in my opinion. But I think you are right, I don’t think they had the evidence to find her guilty regardless of whether you think she did it.

[Paninistickers]

4 minutes ago, VLC86 said:

Yeah, the channel 4 one was much better as far as the detail in my opinion. But I think you are right, I don’t think they had the evidence to find her guilty regardless of whether you think she did it.

The case is no way beyond reasonable doubt and as such, you can't convict.

 

But, I've mentioned this on the thread before, the original defence has had a mare. They offered nothing in terms of rebuttal and alternative expert witness accounts. They offered almost no proper legal forensic challenge to the prosecution. The prosecution actually needs a rigourous challenge to help prove its own case. Regardless of she did it or not, the defence should be struck off. 

[VLC86]

4 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

The case is no way beyond reasonable doubt and as such, you can't convict.

 

But, I've mentioned this on the thread before, the original defence has had a mare. They offered nothing in terms of rebuttal and alternative expert witness accounts. They offered almost no proper legal forensic challenge to the prosecution. The prosecution actually needs a rigourous challenge to help prove its own case. Regardless of she did it or not, the defence should be struck off. 

Agree with all of that.

[Sly]

I watched the Netflix documentary, having only ever really followed it on the BBC news before. 
 

I’m still on the fence, as the evidence presented doesn’t prove beyond reasonable doubt that she was murdering babies.

 

The fact “medical experts” have questioned the accuracy of the data, is somewhat alarming at this stage. 
 

The case was submitted to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) last year and I’ve just noticed they’ve put a timeline on their website due to the interest in the case.

 

https://ccrc.gov.uk/news/chairs-statement-on-lucy-letby-application-review/

[bovril]

8 hours ago, Sly said:

 

I’m still on the fence, as the evidence presented doesn’t prove beyond reasonable doubt that she was murdering babies.

 

Well then you're not on the fence.

[adam1]

Thought something was off from the outset when she was originally arrested, that something wasn't adding up.

 

I think it is an unsafe conviction - regardless of whether she is guilty or not.

[FoxesDeb]

I commented on this on another thread, I think at the time she was convicted, and was ridiculed for casting doubt on her guilt. I'm still not convinced she did it 'beyond a reasonable doubt', I wasn't at the time and everything I've seen since makes me even more unconvinced.

 

 

 

 

[Tommy G]

She was the scapegoat for a clearly very poorly run neo natal unit. 

[Sly]

24 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

I commented on this on another thread, I think at the time she was convicted, and was ridiculed for casting doubt on her guilt. I'm still not convinced she did it 'beyond a reasonable doubt', I wasn't at the time and everything I've seen since makes me even more unconvinced.

 

I’m so on the fence with it, which says to me it can’t be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

[Sly]

On 16/02/2026 at 14:12, bovril said:

Well then you're not on the fence.

It could go either way, after an extended VAR check 

[bovril]

On 01/07/2025 at 19:06, bovril said:

Wymsey redemption arc 

Continues

[Raj]

Just seen the Netflux doc and have to question-

Why did she have all that documentation at home?

How were there no deaths when she wasnt there.

If it was a poorly run department why was there no deaths either side of LL working there?

 

Think.LL is definitely  on the spectrum with regards to all her notes/ diaries.

 

Surely if your innocent you would be screaming and shouting your innocence  during interviews?

[when_you're_smiling]

9 minutes ago, Raj said:

Just seen the Netflux doc and have to question-

Why did she have all that documentation at home?

How were there no deaths when she wasnt there.

If it was a poorly run department why was there no deaths either side of LL working there?

 

Think.LL is definitely  on the spectrum with regards to all her notes/ diaries.

 

Surely if your innocent you would be screaming and shouting your innocence  during interviews?

I have t watched the documentary, but there were at least eight deaths when she wasn’t around. The court hearing wasn’t told that.

[Raj]

16 minutes ago, when_you're_smiling said:

I have t watched the documentary, but there were at least eight deaths when she wasn’t around. The court hearing wasn’t told that.

Sounds like her defense  is as bad as lcfc.

 

If it's a cover up, which actually wouldnt suprise me it's a fecking disgraceful  act 

[Parafox]

25 minutes ago, when_you're_smiling said:

I have t watched the documentary, but there were at least eight deaths when she wasn’t around. The court hearing wasn’t told that.

Nor were the experts that disputed the prosecution's evidence called by her defence team.

[Ian Nacho]

From what I've seen, she's probably done it but that isn't the legal test so I probably think there needs to be a retrial. 

[Jon the Hat]

6 hours ago, when_you're_smiling said:

I have t watched the documentary, but there were at least eight deaths when she wasn’t around. The court hearing wasn’t told that.

The question is where those suspicious deaths or fully explained deaths.

 

The docu also noted a reason for the drop in deaths after she left the unit was related to a lowering of the status of the unit which meant the sickest babies went elsewhere.

[Tommy G]

19 hours ago, Raj said:

Just seen the Netflux doc and have to question-

Why did she have all that documentation at home?

How were there no deaths when she wasnt there.

If it was a poorly run department why was there no deaths either side of LL working there?

 

Think.LL is definitely  on the spectrum with regards to all her notes/ diaries.

 

Surely if your innocent you would be screaming and shouting your innocence  during interviews?

If she's on the Spectrum she might not of acted like that....

[Raj]

9 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

If she's on the Spectrum she might not of acted like that....

Yep true that